Opponents say open records bill would hurt access

Feb. 27, 2013

Written by

Scott Bauer

Associated Press

MADISON — Allowing government entities to charge for the time spent deleting confidential information would limit the public’s access and make it easier for bureaucrats to hide information, opponents of a proposed change in the law told legislators Wednesday.

The Republican-backed bill stems from a Wisconsin Supreme Court case last year that said charging for the time spent on deleting confidential information was illegal. The proposal, introduced by Rep. Garey Bies, R-Sister Bay, would effectively negate that ruling.

The committee took no immediate action on the bill, which would have to be passed by both the Assembly and Senate and be signed by Gov. Scott Walker before becoming law.

Supporters of the measure — including groups representing Wisconsin counties, towns, the University of Wisconsin and the Milwaukee Police Department — argued that it made sense to allow for the charges because of the time and expense involved with processing the volume and breadth of open records requests being filed.

“There has to be a balance, there has to be a sharing of cost in responding to some of these requests,” said bill supporter Melanie Rutledge, assistant city attorney for Milwaukee. Members of the city’s police force who process open records requests joined Rutledge in supporting the measure.

Last year’s Supreme Court ruling came out of a dispute between the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and the Milwaukee Police Department.

The newspaper sued after the department demanded $4,000 to cover time spent redacting hundreds of incident reports reporters asked for as part of an investigation into how the agency classifies crime data.

A Milwaukee County judge sided with the city, authorizing it to charge the newspaper for all costs related to complying with the requests, including redactions. The state Supreme Court last June reversed that ruling, concluding that Wisconsin’s open records law allows custodians to charge only for reproducing, photographing, locating and mailing records.

(Page 2 of 2)

The court’s four-justice conservative majority, however, implored lawmakers to address the issue, saying they should decide whether taxpayers should bear the full brunt of redaction expenses.

That led to Bies introducing the bill, which he said in a statement was designed to address concerns brought to him by local government officials across the state about costs they have to incur fulfilling records requests.

“The goal of this bill isn’t to limit access to public records, but rather to protect the integrity of the law,” Bies said in his statement.

Wisconsin Newspapers Association attorney Bob Dreps testified that allowing charges for deleting information would make it easier for holders of public information to discourage requests by charging thousands of dollars for redactions. Governments holding the records are more likely to do that if the information requested is particularly sensitive or damaging, he said.

That won’t happen, said Curt Witynski, assistant director of the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, which represents 600 communities in the state.

“It cannot be ignored that complying with the public records law, making records accessible, costs money,” Witynski said. “We think it makes sense that the requester of a record share in some of the costs of making that record available.”

But Dreps said with so many records maintained electronically, it should be easier for governments to separate elements that are confidential and not incur a lot of costs singling those pieces out.

Michael Juley, a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel assistant editor, told the committee that the newspaper always works with those it is asking information from to keep costs down and speed fulfillment of the request.

Juley called the bill a “serious threat to the state’s open records law” that contradicts the intentions of those who passed it in 1981.

“There is no problem with the current law and we’re not sure what wrong this bill is attempting to right,” he said. “We need openness and transparency.”